Jane Doe 2
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Abuser victim |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Jane Doe 1
|
Co petitioners |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Epstein
|
Victim subject |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Paul Cassell
|
Client |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Jane Doe 1
|
Co petitioners co victims |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Rape of Jane Doe 2 | Unknown | View |
| 2019-09-03 | N/A | Court Hearing/Filing | Court (Southern District of... | View |
| 2019-07-23 | N/A | Filing of Jane Doe 1 and 2's Reply to Intervenor Epstein's Brief. | US District Court, Southern... | View |
| 2019-07-23 | N/A | Filing by Jane Doe 1 and 2 in the Florida CVRA case. | Florida | View |
| 2019-07-23 | N/A | Filing by Jane Doe 1 and 2 in Florida CVRA case regarding remedies. | Florida | View |
| 2019-07-21 | N/A | Approximate date for filing the brief mentioned (email states 'We file in about one week' from Ju... | Court (implied) | View |
| 2019-05-23 | Legal filing | Doe, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 submitted a document on proposed remedies. | N/A | View |
| 2019-05-10 | N/A | Filing of Petitioners' Position on Procedures to Determine Remedy. | SD Florida Court | View |
| 2019-02-21 | N/A | Summary Judgment Order entered by Judge Marra finding the Government violated the CVRA. | SD Florida Court | View |
| 2013-01-01 | N/A | Clients were told the NPA did not extend to New York or other jurisdictions | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Petitioners initiated the action. | Southern District of Florida | View |
| 2007-08-07 | N/A | Jane Doe 1 provided information about her abuse and Jane Doe 2's abuse to the FBI. | N/A | View |
| 1999-01-01 | N/A | Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused more than 30 minor girls, including Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and Ja... | Palm Beach, Florida; United... | View |
013.pdf
This document is a reply filed by Bradley J. Edwards in support of his motion to quash a subpoena served on him by Ghislaine Maxwell in the case of Giuffre v. Maxwell. Edwards argues that the subpoena imposes an undue burden on him as a non-party and opposing counsel, seeking information that is already in Maxwell's possession, privileged, irrelevant, or available from other sources. The brief details the history of related litigation, including the CVRA case and a defamation suit against Alan Dershowitz, to support the argument that the subpoena is harassing and unnecessary.
010-10.pdf
This document is a Court Order from the Southern District of Florida, dated April 15, 2015, denying Jeffrey Epstein's motion for a supplemental protective order. Epstein sought to keep correspondence between his lawyers and the US Government regarding his non-prosecution agreement sealed from the public. Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that the public interest in determining if the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) was violated outweighs Epstein's desire for confidentiality, stating that plea negotiations are not privileged.
010-03.pdf
This is a court order from Judge Kenneth A. Marra denying motions by Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 to join an existing lawsuit filed by Jane Doe 1 and 2 against the US Government regarding violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act in the Epstein case. The judge ruled that adding new parties was unnecessary as their claims were duplicative and they could instead serve as witnesses. Significantly, the Judge sua sponte ordered the striking of 'lurid details' and allegations made by Jane Doe 3 regarding being trafficked to high-profile non-parties (including politicians and world leaders), deeming them impertinent to the specific legal claim against the government. Consequently, Alan Dershowitz's motion to intervene to strike these same allegations was denied as moot.
EFTA00030511.pdf
An email dated July 30, 2019, circulating a South Florida Sun Sentinel article. The article discusses the legal conflict regarding Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement in Florida, noting that while some victims want new charges in Florida following his New York arrest, prosecutors argue others wish to avoid reopening the case to protect their privacy. Lawyers for victims Jane Doe 1 and 2 argue that the privacy concerns of some should not prevent the prosecution of Epstein and his co-conspirators.
EFTA00027809.pdf
This document is a 'Government's Notice of Proposed Procedures for the Determination of a Remedy' filed by the United States in the case of Jane Doe 1 & 2 v. United States. The government proposes a schedule where Petitioners must first submit their proposed remedies, followed by a 60-day period for the government to consult with victims before responding. The government argues this consultation is essential because potential remedies, such as rescinding Epstein's non-prosecution agreement, could negatively impact other victims who have already received compensation or wish to avoid further trauma.
EFTA00027776.pdf
This document is a legal filing by Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and 2 in May 2019, arguing for specific procedures to determine a remedy after the court ruled the Government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by secretly negotiating a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. The petitioners argue the Government should immediately announce its proposed remedy, specifically the rescission of the NPA's immunity clauses, and request limited discovery including depositions of key figures like former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and Epstein's attorney Jay Lefkowitz regarding a secret 2007 'breakfast meeting.' The filing includes correspondence between victims' counsel and the U.S. Attorney's Office, highlighting the Government's delay tactics and the recent recusal of the Southern District of Florida office.
EFTA00027666.pdf
This document is an Opinion and Order from a U.S. District Court case related to Jeffrey Epstein. It details the history of Epstein's sexual abuse of minor girls, including Petitioners Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2, from 1999 to 2007 in Palm Beach, Florida, and internationally. The document outlines the investigation by the PBPD and FBI, and the subsequent discussions and negotiations between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Epstein's legal team from 2006 to 2007, including efforts to secure a plea agreement and manage press coverage.
EFTA00023059.pdf
This document is the Executive Summary of a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report from November 2020 investigating the conduct of U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and other prosecutors regarding the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. OPR concluded that while Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' in resolving the case via NPA and failing to ensure victims were notified, he did not commit professional misconduct as defined by clear and unambiguous standards. The report details the history of the investigation, the CVRA litigation by victims, and the subsequent fallout leading to Acosta's resignation and Epstein's 2019 arrest and death.
EFTA00022546.pdf
This document is a Reply Brief filed by victims Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 in opposition to Jeffrey Epstein's intervention brief regarding remedies for violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The victims argue for the partial rescission of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed in 2007, specifically the immunity provisions, on the grounds that the agreement was illegally concealed from victims in violation of the CVRA. The brief refutes Epstein's arguments regarding due process, contract law, estoppel, and separation of powers, asserting that the NPA is unenforceable due to its illegal formation and the government's failure to confer with victims.
EFTA00021441.pdf
An email from an attorney representing Jane Doe 1 and 2 discussing legal arguments in the Florida CVRA case against Jeffrey Epstein. The sender highlights a filing arguing that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is limited solely to Florida crimes and does not extend to New York, countering a motion by Epstein's lawyer Marty Weinberg. The email notes that the victims were explicitly told in 2013 that the NPA was jurisdictionally limited.
EFTA00015560.pdf
In this July 14, 2019 email, attorney Paul Cassell contacts a redacted recipient (likely a prosecutor) regarding the legal representation of Jane Doe 1 and 2. Cassell discusses a forthcoming brief responding to Jeffrey Epstein's claims about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), specifically arguing that the NPA is limited to the Southern District of Florida. He offers to share the draft with the recipient's office prior to filing to ensure coordination and avoid interference.
EFTA00014538.pdf
This document is an email chain from July 2019 discussing legal proceedings related to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Jeffrey Epstein's Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). An attorney representing victims 'Jane Doe 1 and 2' updates other parties (likely government officials or other counsel) on recent filings, arguing that the NPA does not extend to New York and is limited to Florida crimes. The thread also notes a recent motion by Epstein's lawyer, Marty Weinberg, regarding the scope of the NPA.
EFTA00014536.pdf
An email thread from July 2019 between a lawyer representing Jane Doe 1 and 2 (likely Paul Cassell based on Utah Bar mention) and an investigator/official. The lawyer updates the recipient on recent filings in the Florida CVRA case, specifically arguing that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is limited to Florida and does not extend to New York, a point relevant to ongoing investigations. The recipient requests a call to discuss the lawyer's expertise on the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
EFTA00013359.pdf
This document is the Executive Summary of a DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report from November 2020 investigating the conduct of U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta and other prosecutors regarding the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. OPR concluded that while Acosta exercised "poor judgment" in resolving the case via the NPA and failing to ensure victims were properly notified, he and his staff did not commit professional misconduct as defined by DOJ standards. The report details the history of the investigation, the secret negotiations, the subsequent violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), and the eventual fallout leading to Acosta's resignation as Labor Secretary in 2019.
EFTA00011475.pdf
This document is an Executive Summary of a November 2020 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility report investigating the 2006-2008 federal handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. It details the negotiation of the controversial Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) approved by then-US Attorney Alexander Acosta, which allowed Epstein to plead to lesser state charges, and examines the failure of the government to consult with victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The report concludes that while Acosta and other attorneys did not commit professional misconduct by definition, Acosta exercised 'poor judgment' in resolving the case via the NPA and the government failed to treat victims with necessary forthrightness.
EFTA00010542.pdf
This document is the United States Government's legal response to proposed remedies by victims (Petitioners) of Jeffrey Epstein following a court finding that the government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by failing to confer with them before entering a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The government admits its communication with victims was insufficient but argues against the Petitioners' request to partially rescind the NPA, citing contract law, potential harm to other victims relying on the agreement, and separation of powers. Instead, the government proposes holding a public hearing for victim impact statements, arranging meetings between victims and DOJ representatives, and mandating additional training for prosecutors.
EFTA00010507.pdf
This document is a court opinion and order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in the case of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States. The court ruled that the government violated the Petitioners' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) by failing to confer with them before entering into a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. The court granted partial summary judgment for the Petitioners regarding the CVRA violation and denied the government's cross-motion, while deferring the issue of remedy to a later date.
DOJ-OGR-00023239.tif
This document details how case agents and an individual named Villafaña solicited victims' opinions on resolving the federal investigation into Epstein. It highlights that victims had varied desires, including some wanting a plea deal, some opposing prosecution, and others wanting jail time, while many expressed concerns about privacy, safety, and the impact of public disclosure on their relationships. The document also notes that Villafaña's records and memory of these interactions were sometimes insufficient for OPR to fully assess the discussions.
DOJ-OGR-00000716.jpg
This document is page 78 of a court transcript filed on September 3, 2019, containing victim impact statements. One victim details the psychological trauma caused by Epstein, including a near-suicide attempt, and expresses frustration that his death allowed him to escape sentencing. The page concludes with the beginning of a statement from a second victim who describes being raped by Epstein when she was a 16-year-old virgin.
DOJ-OGR-00021446.jpg
This legal document details the aftermath of the Jeffrey Epstein case concerning victims' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). Following Epstein's death, a district court denied the victims' (petitioners') motion for remedies, such as rescinding the non-prosecution agreement, deeming the issue moot. The document also covers an appeal by a victim named Wild and the government's legal arguments that its CVRA obligations were not triggered because charges were never filed in the original district.
DOJ-OGR-00021401.jpg
This legal document details investigator Villafaña's account of her interactions with Jeffrey Epstein's victims regarding the resolution of the federal case. Villafaña reported to OPR that victims had varied opinions, with many not wanting to testify or have Epstein prosecuted due to fears about privacy, safety, and public disclosure. Declarations from 2017 by both Villafaña and an FBI case agent corroborate that victims expressed significant concerns and did not uniformly push for prosecution.
DOJ-OGR-00021178.jpg
This document outlines the procedural history of Jeffrey Epstein's 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), detailing his guilty plea to state charges of procuring minors for prostitution and the subsequent sentence of 18 months in jail. It highlights the nine-month delay caused by Epstein's legal team attempting to renegotiate terms with senior DOJ officials, culminating in the Deputy Attorney General's refusal to intervene on June 23, 2008. The text also describes the immediate legal fallout, specifically a July 7, 2008 emergency petition filed by a victim ('Jane Doe') alleging violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act because victims were not consulted about the deal.
DOJ-OGR-00019323.jpg
A letter to Judge Loretta A. Preska from Laura A. Menninger regarding procedural requests for the unsealing of documents in the case involving Ms. Maxwell. The letter proposes amendments to the unsealing protocol to prevent errors, requests a 7-day window for appeals to the Second Circuit, and suggests a specific list of five docket entries for the next round of review.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016508.tif
This newspaper article from February 28, 2019, details the sexual abuse committed by Jeffrey Epstein, focusing on the testimony of Michelle Licata and the controversial non-prosecution agreement. It highlights the efforts of Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiner and Detective Joseph Recarey to pursue the case despite pressure, and the role of Epstein's high-profile legal team, including Alan Dershowitz and then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, in securing a lenient deal. The article also touches on the defense's tactics to discredit victims and the broader context of Epstein's influence given his wealth and connections.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028965.jpg
A legal letter from attorney Martin G. Weinberg, representing Jeffrey Epstein, to John Zucker at ABC's Office of Legal Counsel. Weinberg attempts to dissuade ABC from airing a 'Good Morning America' interview with 'Jane Doe 3,' claiming her accusations are uncorroborated, recycled from 2011 UK tabloids, and were previously dismissed by a federal judge. The letter also notes that an FBI agent declared Jane Doe 3 refused to cooperate with the FBI regarding Epstein in 2007.
CVRA letter
Jane Doe 2 received the same CVRA letter as Jane Doe 1.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity